Quite a few. Not in real combat, but I used them the way they were intended to be used, and as instructed by the experts, which involves holding a central boss-strap. This gives the whole length of the arm to maneuver the shield with. There is no reason to strap it to your arm and very good reasons not to - reduces maneuverability and means a blow to the shield would be transmitted into your arm.
Dropping a shield
- Thread starter MarauderX
- Start date
Quite a few. Not in real combat, but I used them the way they were intended to be used, and as instructed by the experts, which involves holding a central boss-strap. This gives the whole length of the arm to maneuver the shield with. There is no reason to strap it to your arm and very good reasons not to - reduces maneuverability and means a blow to the shield would be transmitted into your arm.
underfoot007ct
First Post
LOL, Do live in a dangerous neighborhood ?
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
There are two main ways shields were held in medieval combat, with both forms existing contemporarily with each other. One is solely with a bar grip (attached on the inside of the shield over the boss), the other is with straps (known as "enarmes"). Both forms could be used with both round and kite shields, though bar grips were more common with round shields and enarmes more common with kite shields. There is the possibility of a third "hybrid" form of a bar grip with a strap (enarme) for the forearm, though this would probably have been quite rare.
Along with the bar grip or straps, most shields would also have an attached long strap called a "guige". This is a strap that was worn diagonally across the back/chest (much like a military sling for a rifle) or across the shoulders/top of chest . This strap was used for carrying the shield while marching, or for stowing it quickly over the back during combat (eliminating the need to "drop" the shield - it was much more tactically sound to be able to retain your shield rather than just dropping it on the battlefield).
Regardless of the games' rules, a shield that could not be released quickly if necessary would become a severe liability in combat. A trained warrior would not be that purposely stupid. Enarmes (straps) could be tightened for security and comfort, but no warrior would tighten them to the point they couldn't quickly slip their arm out.
As seen in the accompanying picture, the use of enarmes also included padding along the inside of the shield, so that the force of blows would be mitigated and not be debilitatingly transmitted to the warriors arm. If the warrior was also wearing armor, this would decrease the transmission of blows to the arm even more.
To be more accurate (if one wants such an increase over the RAW):
Shields with guiges (both round and kite).
Round shield with bar grip and enarme (and also a guige).
Guige worn diagonally across torso.
Guige worn across shoulders/top of chest.
Along with the bar grip or straps, most shields would also have an attached long strap called a "guige". This is a strap that was worn diagonally across the back/chest (much like a military sling for a rifle) or across the shoulders/top of chest . This strap was used for carrying the shield while marching, or for stowing it quickly over the back during combat (eliminating the need to "drop" the shield - it was much more tactically sound to be able to retain your shield rather than just dropping it on the battlefield).
Regardless of the games' rules, a shield that could not be released quickly if necessary would become a severe liability in combat. A trained warrior would not be that purposely stupid. Enarmes (straps) could be tightened for security and comfort, but no warrior would tighten them to the point they couldn't quickly slip their arm out.
As seen in the accompanying picture, the use of enarmes also included padding along the inside of the shield, so that the force of blows would be mitigated and not be debilitatingly transmitted to the warriors arm. If the warrior was also wearing armor, this would decrease the transmission of blows to the arm even more.
To be more accurate (if one wants such an increase over the RAW):
- a shield with only a bar grip should be able to be dropped as a free action.
- a shield with a bar grip and a guige should be able to be slung over the back quite quickly as a minor action.
- a shield with enarmes should only require a minor action to pull the arm free and drop.
- a shield with enarmes and a guige should require a standard action to pull the arm free and sling the shield over the back.
Shields with guiges (both round and kite).
Round shield with bar grip and enarme (and also a guige).
Guige worn diagonally across torso.
Guige worn across shoulders/top of chest.
Last edited:
Infiniti2000
First Post
Thanks, El Mahdi1 Must spread XP around first...
Anyway, I think your proposed revised action list is a little unclear. Unfortunately, that's not really your fault because the rules already have a gaping hole (since even 3.X edition) in that there's not a clear definition of wield vs. hold. If we still ignore that such that no one would ever simply want to hold a shield, I would change it like this (assuming like you said all shields have a guige):
Unfortunately, in game terms, using the above alone is insufficient. Bar grip is clearly superior to enarmes in every way, so no PC would ever choose enarmes. What benefit would they provide? Specifically, is it even worth considering game benefits in a system that no longer allows disarming? I can't think of a benefit that wouldn't totally throw the system out of whack (perhaps something with skill checks, or a +1 bonus on bull rushing), so I'd be tempted to just go with one of the sets rules regarding all shields. It seems like Wizards chose enarmes. Thus, dropping a shield is clearly a minor action. QED.
Anyway, I think your proposed revised action list is a little unclear. Unfortunately, that's not really your fault because the rules already have a gaping hole (since even 3.X edition) in that there's not a clear definition of wield vs. hold. If we still ignore that such that no one would ever simply want to hold a shield, I would change it like this (assuming like you said all shields have a guige):
- Bar grip (only):
- drop as a free action
- stow as a minor action
- Enarmes (only):
- drop as a minor action
- stow as a standard action
Unfortunately, in game terms, using the above alone is insufficient. Bar grip is clearly superior to enarmes in every way, so no PC would ever choose enarmes. What benefit would they provide? Specifically, is it even worth considering game benefits in a system that no longer allows disarming? I can't think of a benefit that wouldn't totally throw the system out of whack (perhaps something with skill checks, or a +1 bonus on bull rushing), so I'd be tempted to just go with one of the sets rules regarding all shields. It seems like Wizards chose enarmes. Thus, dropping a shield is clearly a minor action. QED.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Anyway, I think your proposed revised action list is a little unclear. Unfortunately, that's not really your fault because the rules already have a gaping hole (since even 3.X edition) in that there's not a clear definition of wield vs. hold. If we still ignore that such that no one would ever simply want to hold a shield, I would change it like this (assuming like you said all shields have a guige):
The reason why I mentioned wield vs. hold is because with enarmes you're missing that option. It doesn't make sense that you can stow with a bar grip as a minor and you can't stow with enarmes as two minors (since you can loosen/drop it as a minor). I would consider allowing stowing with enarmes as two minors, but then we need to define the state of the shield after the first minor.
- Bar grip (only):
- drop as a free action
- stow as a minor action
- Enarmes (only):
- drop as a minor action
- stow as a standard action
Unfortunately, in game terms, using the above alone is insufficient. Bar grip is clearly superior to enarmes in every way, so no PC would ever choose enarmes. What benefit would they provide? Specifically, is it even worth considering game benefits in a system that no longer allows disarming? I can't think of a benefit that wouldn't totally throw the system out of whack (perhaps something with skill checks, or a +1 bonus on bull rushing), so I'd be tempted to just go with one of the sets rules regarding all shields. It seems like Wizards chose enarmes. Thus, dropping a shield is clearly a minor action. QED.
Sounds great, especially since it's exactly the same as what I said (with the exception of calling it "stow" rather than "sling over the back"...).
One minor correction: not all shields would have had a guige attached. The medieval period was a pretty long period of time. I'd say that in the dark ages and early medieval they were probably rare. By the high medieval period and onward, they were likely on the majority of shields (though still not all).
In game terms, you're right, by the rules there's no advantage to using enarmes over a bar grip. However in reality, enarmes were the more modern development and became the preferred method. They allowed one to hold the shield much more securely and reduced fatigue. With only a bar grip, all of the muscles of the arm are being used, with the majority of the weight being held and manipulated with the wrist and forearm (the smallest muscles controlling the most weight). With enarmes, the stress is taken off the wrist and transferred to the upper arm, the largest muscles of the arm. And you're right about the disarming. A shield held with a bar grip alone would be much easier to be disarmed, a shield held with enarmes would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to disarm. But with no mechanics for this in the game, there's no "advantage" to enarmes.
But if one wanted such a thing it wouldn't be too difficult or complicated. If one used a critical hit and fumble chart (as a lot of people do) simply give a shield with enarmes a bonus to any result involving disarming or just ignore a disarm result. If not using such a chart, but possibly using a disarm houserule, simply make shields with enarmes impossible to disarm or provide a bonus to resist.
Or just ignore and follow RAW. Just make an assumption that it's essentially high medieval-ish or later and that enarmes and guiges are the default form. That way the standard action makes sense.
Were shields with enarmes much heavier? The shields I've held with boss grips were 'real' (Greek hoplite, Roman, dark ages Viking/Saxon and I think early medieval) and without being particularly strong I'd have no trouble holding them in combat. I guess if I were in a battle line for hours being shot at with arrows my arm would have tired, and for keeping the shield between me and the arrows, enarmes would have been better than just a strap/guige over the shoulder. But for actual melee the boss grip seems far superior, especially against thrusting weapons. And although the hand grip could be battered down more easily by a heavy slashing weapon, one could recover much faster - or release the shield if it were trapped.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
In general, a large round shield with a bar grip was probably about the same weight as a standard kite shield (as much as any medieval weapon or shield can be called "standard"). So, I don't think weight was the impetus behind the trend towards enarmes. I think that the Norman teardrop-shaped kite shield started as more of a cavalry shield, able to provide protection to the full side, torso and legs. But it became popular with infantry also. And, although the kite shield was more of a Norman/French/Southern European development at first, at the time of the Battle of Hastings even some Anglo-Saxon infantry were using kite shields (as shown on the Bayeux Tapestry).
I think that the main difference was that a kite shield doesn't require as much up and down movement to block blows as a round shield would, since the shield already provides coverage for the lower body and legs. So, any movement of the kite shield would be more side to side, allowing for the use of more secure and better weight-distributing enarmes without trading off versatility or tactical options.
In general, the kite shield became more and more popular as the high middle ages progressed, and as Viking/Germanic influence declined. It remained the preferred form until armor improved from mail, through transitional armors, and on to plate. As the shield became less and less important with the advent of plate, the kite shield steadily shrank into the "heater" style shield.
I think that the main difference was that a kite shield doesn't require as much up and down movement to block blows as a round shield would, since the shield already provides coverage for the lower body and legs. So, any movement of the kite shield would be more side to side, allowing for the use of more secure and better weight-distributing enarmes without trading off versatility or tactical options.
In general, the kite shield became more and more popular as the high middle ages progressed, and as Viking/Germanic influence declined. It remained the preferred form until armor improved from mail, through transitional armors, and on to plate. As the shield became less and less important with the advent of plate, the kite shield steadily shrank into the "heater" style shield.
Argyle King
Legend
Depends on the type of shield; there are different types which are designed for different uses. In some of the other games I play there exist both a Shield skill and a Shield (Buckler) skill for that reason.
Similar Threads
